memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Unnamed Humans (24th century)
The 37s I'm dealing with a sort of minor dilemma. Maybe you can help me. I've got screen caps of two of the unnamed "37's" from the episode of the same name. One is an Indian woman, while the other is an older, slightly disheveled-looking man (most likely a laborer of some sort from either North America or Europe). Trouble is, I can't decide to stick them in with the list of |humans from the 20th century (where they're from) or in with the list of |humans from the 24th century (where we technically find them). What do you think?--T smitts 01:59, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) :I think either would be fine... personally, I'd go with 20th century humans as that's where I'd be more likely to look for these individuals, then create small stub headers for them under 24th century humans (under "The 37's," or something) and redirect to the info on the 20th century page. Vice versa would apply if you decide to put them on the 24th century page. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 02:04, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::I'd say the "humans from the 20th century" list, as that's when they're from. Would you consider Amelia Earhart to be from the 20th or the 24th century? The 20th. Just because they're historically unimportant doesn't mean they weren't still from that time. -Platypus Man 02:05, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) POV This may be nitpicky, but should an in-universe article have real-world section header names? Should this article be organized differently? -- Renegade54 14:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC) :This may be nitpicky, but should an in-universe article have a real-world name? "Unnamed" either is a speculation that they are actually nameless, or, is a real-world point of view. Either way, should this article be named differently? NB: Nitpicking Trek in articles is unpalatable, but nitpicking MA in Talk: eliminates lice. It's why we're not a lousy wiki. --TribbleFurSuit 15:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC) ::I can see fixing the headers in the article... but not the name of the article. What would we name it? "Humans whose names we don't know from the 24th century"? Oh wait... that's the same as saying "Unnamed Humans (24th century)". The article title is perfectly decent from the universe POV, since we're writing this from that universe and we just have never been able to suss out their names. Thus... they are "unnamed". -- sulfur 16:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC) :::I'd go with Renegade54 that the header names should be changed. The article name sounds good to me. – Tom 20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC) :I don't have a better suggestion for the page name right now, other than Human J. Does (24th century), but "unnamed" from in-universe POV doesn't mean "they presumably have names but we don't know them", it means "they certainly were nameless". "Unnamed" only makes sense from the realworld POV, in which they were given no names. --TribbleFurSuit 03:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ::No... unnamed nameless to us. -- sulfur 04:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC) :::: . --Alan 04:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC) :Do you think I don't know that "unnamed nameless to us"? Is that your answer to the question "should an in-universe article have a real-world name"? Though your intention, unless I'm really obtuse, appears contrapolar, you re-stated the very point I'm making: the characters are literally nameless in the real world. The in-universe persons should not be presumed nor stated to be literally nameless. Who's "us" supposed to be, anyway? I argue that "us" is not "us realworld wiki users", but is "us in-universe archivists" as MA:POV indicates. Sorry, but if an article is in-universe then its name ought not to be realworld. As if we've never moved 375 articles before. What if I or anybody/somebody else thinks up a better idea here than "J. Does"? I mean, should I bother to try? --TribbleFurSuit 05:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)